Most Popular Bible Translation

[andypg]

I found this interesting...

A recent study discovered that 55% of Americans read the King James Version of the Bible. 19% read the NIV.

Honestly, I'm kind of surprised, I never would have thought the KJV would be the most read translation. If I were to guess, I would have guessed the NKJV (which I tend to like). But I'm glad a good traditional translation is on the rise and not one like the NIV.

Thoughts?

The Most Popular and Fastest Growing Bible Translation Isn't What You Think It Is | Gleanings | ChristianityToday.com

[Guest]

Hmm... that surprises me as well. The KJV is not the easiest to read...

[prisonchaplain]

But I'm glad a good traditional translation is on the rise and not one like the NIV.

Thoughts?

I'm not so sure why the NIV doesn't rate as a good traditional translation. The translators came from a much broader pool of talent than the KJV did, they had more ancient (i.e. closer to the actual writing) manuscripts to work with, and it does remain one of the most popular translations--especially in evangelical circles.

Those who favor the KJV tend to point to its majestic and poetic language, and its word-for-word translation. Those are valid qualities, and I have no objections.

If someone asks me what's the best translation, I respond by asking them what they want in their Bible. Readability? Accuracy to the word? Do they want study aids built into their Bible? We are blessed with many choices, and a good many Bible students have 2-3 translations, so they can compare, and gain added insights.

Personally, I used the KJV in the first two years of my Christian life (up to age 12), then transitioned to the NIV. Now, it's hard to go back. If, on the other hand, I had grown up only using the KJV, I'd probably be one singing its virtues too.

[andypg]

I'm not so sure why the NIV doesn't rate as a good traditional translation. The translators came from a much broader pool of talent than the KJV did, they had more ancient (i.e. closer to the actual writing) manuscripts to work with, and it does remain one of the most popular translations--especially in evangelical circles.

Those who favor the KJV tend to point to its majestic and poetic language, and its word-for-word translation. Those are valid qualities, and I have no objections.

If someone asks me what's the best translation, I respond by asking them what they want in their Bible. Readability? Accuracy to the word? Do they want study aids built into their Bible? We are blessed with many choices, and a good many Bible students have 2-3 translations, so they can compare, and gain added insights.

Personally, I used the KJV in the first two years of my Christian life (up to age 12), then transitioned to the NIV. Now, it's hard to go back. If, on the other hand, I had grown up only using the KJV, I'd probably be one singing its virtues too.

Personally, I come from a Catholic background who view the NIV as having an anti-Catholic bias and as too much of a dynamic equivalent. I've always liked poetic and more literal translations, so I would use the Douay-Rheims translation, which I still like. When I wanted something more modern for readability sake, I went with a the RSV-2CE (or NRSV-CE), which I think it a great mix of dynamic and literal.

That's what I know of as far as the NIV. I grew up with a bias towards it and know nothing else of it.

[prisonchaplain]

The NIV translation had over 100 language scholars from a wide variety of denominations. There were evangelicals, but also Lutherans, Anglicans, Christian Reformed, etc. So, I'm not sure where the idea of an anti-Catholic bias comes in. In fact, there is an approved Catholic NIV Bible now: Catholic Bibles: The Catholic Edition of the NIV....

On the other hand, it is true that the NIV translators focused on an idea-by-idea approach, rather than word-for-word. This is why it reads so smoothly, and can easily be read by middle-school students and up. So, if formality and a poetic, lyric rendering are important, than versions would be better.

Also, I had read somewhere that the King James Version had an anti-Catholic history to it. While the Roman Catholic Church does not seem to oppose it as an okay version, there are some undercurrents of distrust amongst many Catholics. Here's one example: Why I Do Not Use The King James Bible : I Am Christian (roman Catholic) Story & Experience

Edited March 19, 2014 by prisonchaplain

[Finrock]

One reason I like the KJV is because the language forces you to think more deeply about what is being said. I have found with some of the easier reading translations there is a tendency to simply accept the idea(s) that the translators are inevitably favoring which is a form of bias. I guess in a sense I think the KJV tends to foster a reliance on prayer and the Spirit for understanding as opposed to a reliance on the translators.

-Finrock

[SpiritDragon]

I'm not surprised at all. One of the main reasons the church uses the KJV is because of its wide acceptance making it a useful missionary tool. Otherwise it would make sense for us to use the JST because it is the most correct.

[tovarisch]

I love my NRSV. It's so easy to read that I can focus on the stories (both in terms of following the narrative and grasping lessons) without getting bogged down in KJV idiosyncrasies.

[Just_A_Guy]

Also, I had read somewhere that the King James Version had an anti-Catholic history to it. While the Roman Catholic Church does not seem to oppose it as an okay version, there are some undercurrents of distrust amongst many Catholics. Here's one example: Why I Do Not Use The King James Bible : I Am Christian (roman Catholic) Story & Experience

Per the LDS Bible Dictionary's entry on "Bible, English", the KJV was apparently something of an attempt to strike a balance between orthodox and Puritan elements of the Church of England.

[Irenaeus]

There's something that one of my theology professors used to say, "translation is interpretation." I think there's some merit to that.

Whenever somebody is translating from one language to another, no matter how good their intentions, there will come a time when they have to pick between one way of interpreting a passage and another. Given the choice, the translator is likely to choose the interpretation that coincides with their beliefs. This isn't dishonest or even necessarily wrong, it's simply the nature of the beast. They believe that their beliefs are true, so the interpretation they use will be the one they perceive to be true.

This is much of the reason that denominations (Catholics in particular) tend to be wary of other traditions' translations. A protestant translation typically supports protestant doctrine, and a Catholic translation will tend to support Catholic doctrine.

As for me, I jump around between different translations quite a bit. I'd say I use the RSV, KJV, and NAB most of all. Each of the three has their good traits. The RSV strikes a good compromise between literal translation and still being comprehensible. The KJV uses poetic language, and the use of "thou" and "you" is nice because it preserves the distinction between second person singulars and plurals that modern translations often drop. The NAB can be kind of clunky to read, but it is fairly easy to comprehend and is the "official" Catholic English translation in the US (though the New Jerusalem version tends to be used outside the US).

As something of a side note, much of this is why the concept of "Sola Scriptura" never really set well with me. When you say that scripture alone is the definitive source of Gospel truth, you have to determine which interpretation of which translation of which manuscripts of which books constitutes the definitive bible. It's not a debate I expect to be resolved prior to the second coming...

[prisonchaplain]

I'd only point out that the NIV, and some other translations, are less likely to be strongly "interpreted" according to a theological predisposition for the very fact that the committee of translators is broadly transdenominational.

[Irenaeus]

I'd only point out that the NIV, and some other translations, are less likely to be strongly "interpreted" according to a theological predisposition for the very fact that the committee of translators is broadly transdenominational.

Even a transdenominational group can, across the board, have theological dispositions. In the case of the NIV, every scholar, or group of scholars, I've been able to find in reference to it has been Protestant or Evangelical. While there's certainly a good deal of ideological spread within those groups, they do tend to share certain beliefs across the board that differentiate them from Catholic, Orthodox, or other churches (like LDS).

Also, from what I can tell, since its translation the NIV has been governed by a group of 15 or so scholars. That smaller group appears to have made few decisions of a decidedly interpretive nature. For example, a criticism of recent versions of the NIV by more conservative Christians is the use of gender-neutral language. Again, I'm not saying this is necessarily wrong, but it certainly is an interpretive decision.

[Dravin]

I enjoy the language of the KJV, but I freely admit that is most likely because of a couple of factors:

1) It is what I grew up with at home and in the Church, this removes the common barrier of unfamiliarity for those being introduced to it later in life.

2) It matches the vernacular of the other standard works, which combines to make it 'the sound of scripture'.

3) LDS tend to use a different vernacular with prayer as well, so it sorta fits together as a reflection of a change in mindset for me.

I recognize that it isn't necessarily a shift in mindset for others, but for me, the shift in language is tied together with a shift in mindset, even if it isn't an overwhelming one. Scripture uses a different vernacular than my everyday life, and to a lesser extent so do my prayers. It acts as a subconscious semi-conscious signal that what I'm dealing with isn't the usual secular and mundane. I realize this could be taken to extremes, such as insisting all prayers and scripture be in another language to further heighten the difference. I think, in all honesty, such would work but at some point one need to consider if such efforts are creating a barrier to interaction with scripture, and prayer, and thus why I don't think more everyday vernacular in prayer or scripture translation is somehow wrong.